| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA. Consumer Complaint No. 448 of 5.12.2017 Decided on: 20.9.2018 Tek Singh aged 77 years s/o Ajit Singh, R/o House No.2042, Phase-2, Urban Estate, Patiala. …………...Complainant Versus 1. Guru Kirpa Online Services , Aggarwal House 14, Desi Mehmandari, Opp. Bus Stand, Patiala through its Proprietor/Partner/Manager. 2. Go Air Line India Pvt. Ltd. Head office-Warli, C-1, Ist Floor, Wadia International Centre, Pundurang Budhkar Marg Warli, Mumbai. …………Opposite Parties Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. QUORUM Smt. Neelam Gupta, Member Sh.Kanwaljeet Singh, Member ARGUED BY: Sh.Bharpur Singh,Advocate, counsel for complainant. Sh.Rakesh, Manager of OP no.1. Opposite party No.2 exparte. ORDER SMT.NEELAM GUPTA, MEMBER - Briefly, the case of the complainant is that on 10.7.2017, the complainant had booked four air tickets with OP No.1 (Up & Down) for his family members from Chandigarh to Mumbai for 10.11.2017 to attend a family function at Mumbai. The OP No.1 charged Rs.17803/-for the ticket from Chandigarh to Mumbai for 10.11.2017 of Air India Air Line and charged Rs.14828/-for the ticket from Mumbai to Chandigarh for 15.11.2017 for the airline of OP No.2.On 10.7.2017, the complainant alongwith his family members through Air India Ticket reached at Mumbai from Chandigarh. After attending the function, when they reached at Mumbai Airport for boarding the Go Air of OP No.2 from Mumbai to Chandigarh, they came to know that the tickets issued by OP No.1 are not acceptable to OP no.2 and the OP No.2 declined the complainant alongwith his family members to travel the airline with the tickets issued by OP No.1.In the compelling circumstances, the complainant immediately had to pay excess amount of Rs.37,736/- for purchase of another tickets from OP No.2 for travelling from Mumbai to Chandigarh. That by issuing of the tickets by OP No.1 which were non acceptable to OP no.2 and charging excess amount of Rs.37,736/- the OPs committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and mal practice. Due to this reason the complainant suffered a great mental agony, tension, harassment and humiliation for which he is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-.Hence this complaint with the prayer for giving direction to the OPs to refund Rs.37,736/- charges in excess by the OPs, to pay Rs.51000/-as compensation on account of mental agony, tension, harassment and humiliation and also to pay Rs.11000/-as litigation expenses.
- Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared through counsel and filed written reply whereas OP no.2 did not come present and contest the case. Accordingly OP no.2 was proceeded against exparte.
In reply, OP No.1 has taken preliminary objections stating that the present complaint is wholly misconceived, groundless and unsustainable in the eyes of law in so far as OP no.1 is concerned and is liable to dismissed; the present complaint is baseless and amounts to abuse of process of law and has been lodged just to harass and blackmail the OP; the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint as he himself has committed wrong and it is well settled that no one can take advantage of one’s own wrong; that the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary and proper parties; that the complaint is frivolous and vexatious; that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and the same is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is pleaded that ticket for outward journey from Chandigarh to Mumbai bearing Airline PNR No.YNSCM vide flight No.AIR INDIA 642 from Chandigarh to Mumbai, which departed on 10.11.2017 at 3:30PM and arrived at 10.11.2017 at Mumbai on 6:10PM was issued by OP No.1. The complainant travelledwith the said tickets and there was no complaint. For the return journey from Mumbai toChandigarh Ticket bearing No.R PNR *1KOM362*/Airline PNR *U2FNWL* vide Go Air Flight No.G8 483 was issued by OP No.1 and the flight was to depart from Mumbai on 15.11.2017 at 16:15hours and was to arrive at Chandigarh on 15.11.2017 at 18:30 hours. The complainant of his own travelled from Mumbai to Chandigarh vide Flight No.G8381 vide AIR LINE PNR No.U2FNWL, which departed from Mumbai at 8:35 hours in the morning and arrived at Chandigarh on 15.11.2017 itself at 11:00 hours. It is stated that the complainant did not travel on the ticket issued by OP No.1 for flight No.G8483 which was to depart from Mumbai at 16:15 hours and the same was to arrive at Chandigarh on 18:30hours for which the OP no.1 cannot be held responsible for the lapse on the part of the complainant.Copy of the real ticket, issued by OP no.1 for return journey from Mumbai to Chandigarh. Theticket placed on record by the complainant as Annexure II does not carry any office stamp of OP no.1.Further it is stated that the complainant has not attached any document in support of his contention that the Air line had dishonoured the ticket issued by OP no.1 and refused to entertain the same. The ticket for return journey on 15.11.2017 from Mumbai to Chandigarh was issued for flight No.G8 of Go Air Lines and the same was to commence on 15.11.2017 at 16:15 hours. The amount of Rs.13,628/- out of Rs.14,826/- which the complainant paid as the cost of journey to OP no.1 on 10.7.2017 were adjusted by the Air line and charged from him Rs.37,736/- only instead of Rs.51,364/-.The ticket issued by Op no.1 for return journey was genuine and there was no irregularity committed by OP no.1.After reiterating the stand as taken in the preliminary objections the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint. - In support of his complaint, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence Ex.CA affidavit of the complainant, alongwith documents Exs.C1 to C4 and closed the evidence.
- Sh.Rakesh Kumar, Manager of OP no.1 tendered in evidence Ex.OPA affidavit of Varun Aggarwal, Prop. of Op no.1 alongwith document Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence.
- We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant, rep. of OP and also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
- Ex.C1 is the copy of the air ticket purchased by the complainant for going from Chandigarh to Bombay on 10.11.2017.Ex.C2 is the copy of the air ticket, purchased by the complainant for the return journey for Bombay to Chandigarh on 15.11.2017, on which the departure time is written as 8.35 hrs on 15.11.2015.Further Ex.C3 is the copy of the fresh ticket purchased by the complainant on 15.11.2017 by paying a sum of Rs.37,736/- extra and the departure time is 8.35hrs. On both the tickets i.e. Ex.C2 & Ex.C3 the flight number is also same i.e. G 8 381.Whereas the only plea taken by the OP no.1 in its written statement that the departure time of the air flight from Bombay to Chandigarh was 16.15hours on 15.11.2017 but has altogether failed to place on record any documentary evidence to show that the departure time of the flight was 16.15 hrs.. The departure time on the new ticket purchased on 15.11.2017 was 8.35 hrs.The complainant travelled on the same flight in which he had to travel earlier i.e. flight No.G 8 381.The complainant made various e-mails to OP no.2 for the refund of the excess amount paid by him, vide Ex.C4. In an e-mail dated 6th December,2017 i.e. Ex.C4, the OP no.2 has demanded the details of the customer’s account in order to process refund of an amount of INR 37,738/- through NEFT. From the said e-mail, it is clear that the OP no.2 charged a sum of Rs.37,736/- extra from the complainant which amounted to unfair trade practice on its part and the complainant underwent a lot of harassment and suffered monetarily too. Moreover, failure on the part of the OP no.2 to contest the claim of the complainant shows its indifferent attitude to redress the grievance of the complainant.
- In view of the aforesaid discussion, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OP no.2 to refund the amount of Rs.37,736/- to the complainant i.e. the amount charged in excess by OP no.2. OP no.2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-as compensation alongwith a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order be complied by OP No.2, within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.
ANNOUNCED DATED:20.9.2018 KANWALJEET SINGH NEELAM GUPTA MEMBER MEMBER | |
